no one trusts or believes you peter, page-17

Yes, probably presumptuous of me, Johnny. Let's hope your wisdom prevails, and your point about the sp in 2002 doesn't come to pass...

I hadn't intended to write any more on this matter (at least in the public domain) but the point raised by Prophet4me a few days ago has lodged itself in my brain...

Prophet4me alluded to the recent Aristocrat leisure class action around non-disclosure of certain information by the company during a period in 2002-03 which, it was claimed, had mislead and deceived investors who, had they been aware of this information would not have bought shares in the company and therefore not have suffered the losses they subsequently did - once that information was eventually disclosed (in May 2003). The claim brought by the class action was dubbed "fraud upon the market".

The action was well-funded and concluded happily for affected investors in a recent out of court settlement. Presumably (there I go again) Aristocrat wished to avoid the risk of establishing legal precedent. As an aside, the law firm representing the Aristocrat SHs in their action is the same one that has been advising Bta in its litigation with Gsk. Some you win, some you lose, I suppose…or so I thought...

I am not a lawyer but I wonder if there might be some parallels to Biota’s shenanigans? I have checked and I can find no public disclosure by Bta of Gsk's offer of October 2006 of $100M as brought to our attention by the SMH journalist Michael West in his July 24 piece: ‘Biota's Bitter Pill for Investors’.

According to West, there was also a subsequent offer from Gsk to Bta, in April 2007, of $75M plus costs. Interestingly, West also recalls the Bta CEO, Peter Cook, as saying soon after settling with Gsk (it still pains me to say it) for $20M and no costs - that there were "a number of settlement discussions over the 4-year course of the litigation; the most recent was in 2006". West’s revelations of the Gsk offers were complete news to me. Was it so for other Bta SHs? Was this non-disclosure material to the losses suffered by Bta SHs? Why did Peter Cook say the most recent Gsk offer was in Oct 2006 when (at least according to West’s article, Gsk also offered $75M plus costs in April 2007). Is that not misleading?

The timing of announcements to changes in the share buy-back and the timing of advice from the Sydney QC to Bta on the increasing risk to Bta in pursuing the litigation, and the sp behaviour before and since, need to be properly unraveled. Does this indicate the market was very likely partially informed? How come the advice from the Sydney QC was apparently so at odds with the advice from Bta’s solicitors and lawyers who had a strong vested interest to keep the litigation going? Why did Bta take 4 years to seek wider legal counsel? What was the legal advice over the last 4/5 years? Come on Peter – let’s have some proper disclosure…since, without it, SHs are left wondering whether, like Aristocrat’s SH’s in 2002/03, they have been victims of misleading and deceptive conduct - a "fraud upon the market"?

Bta SHs need also note in Peter’s recent open briefing that litigation costs are not yet fully realized to the accounts and Bta SHs will, unhappily, likely continue paying legal costs well into 2009! What was that ‘success fee’ agreement with Bta’s lawyers again, Peter? How much of the $20M will be channeled into the Melbourne Lawyers coffers?

I’ll close now with the following quote from Peter Cook in his 20 Feb 2008 ‘Open briefing’ to the market that, I think, illuminates Peter’s rare talent:

“However, we’re closely managing the litigation process, and we’ll make certain we achieve value for our shareholders.” Ominously, Peter continued: “We are committed to delivering and have the financial resources to achieve the outcome we believe the shareholders are owed”.

There you have it folks. Which shareholders Peter was alluding to remains a mystery…or perhaps not for long. But now I’m being presumptuous again...